STEPHEN J. ISAACS, 859-252-5757, a Kentucky DUI Attorney with Isaacs Law Office, writes about defenses to Driving Under the Influence / DUI / DWI in Kentucky.

As a practicing Kentucky DUI attorney I receive calls from people charged with DUI's who sincerely do not believe that their DUI case can be won! They call for help and to hire an a DUI defense lawyer but appear defeated before their defense even begins. In our discussions I explain to each caller that many, but not all, DUI's are winnable based on the facts. Yet I can tell from many of the caller's statements that they don't believe they can win regardless of what I say.

Earlier today I was reminded of this again while speaking with my client at the conclusion of the client's DUI case. Another criminal defense attorney had called me at the beginning of the case and asked for my assistance in defending his client. The case involved a blood test where assorted drugs were found in the client's blood and the client was found in her vehicle on the side of the roadway. He initially did not believe he could win the case due to the anticipated results of the pending blood test and discussed the options of a guilty plea. I explained that I thought we could win the case. Both the co-counsel and the client were skeptical. I worked the case as lead counsel, prepared the defense plan, handled the majority of the pretrial negotiations, prepared all of the motions for the court, retained the expert toxicologist, performed necessary investigations, and conducted a suppression hearing. During pretrial negotiations the prosecutor informed me that had had a very good track record of getting convictions on cases similar to my client's case. He initially did not listen to my argument that the facts did not support a conviction when applied to statutory law. The client and co-counsel continued to discuss negotiating a guilty plea to the DUI. I pressed on. All of the work paid off as I convinced my co-counsel, the client, and the prosecutor that the client had a winnable case during the suppression hearing. After a strong defense over many months and after presenting our arguments at the suppression hearing and continuing to show the prosecutor that the facts did not support the statutory elements for a DUI, the prosecutor agreed to amend the client's DUI to a traffic violation which was accepted by court.

So what do you need to win a DUI case? Believing in your innocence, hiring an experienced DUI defense attorney, and having a good written defense plan and following it.

First you must believe in yourself, in your innocence, and that your case may be won. A positive mental attitude helps your attorney: I find myself working harder for my client's when my client's believe in themselves. Prosecutors and Judges notice when a DUI defense lawyer believes in their client's innocence. They also take notice when the client believes in their own innocence.

Second, hire the best attorney you can to defend your DUI. Speak with your attorney. See if you feel comfortable with their expertise. Every attorney is different and handles cases differently. Listen to your attorney.

Third, work with your attorney to develop a case defense plan which fits your budget. This can only be done after meeting with the criminal defense attorney and answering your attorney's questions regarding the factual evidence. After the initial intake, the attorney will offer an opinion as to the work to be done, if experts need to be retained, the time commitment involved, and an estimate of costs involved. Then have the attorney put the defense plan in writing so you can both follow the process. This can be from one to many pages. For example, many times I offer alternative explanations during pretrial negotiations which fit the facts. However, the only way certain prosecutors will act on those facts is at a hearing, such as a license revocation hearing, a motion in limine hearing, or a suppression hearing. I personally like hearings to minimize risk to my client's and to help me modify my case plan prior to a possible trial. I include any option I can think of in my defense plan and modify it as the case progresses as new defense theories present themselves. My defense plan in the client's case listed above allowed me to convince the client, my co-counsel, and the prosecutor that the officer erred in charging the client with a DUI instead of realizing that the client needed to receive emergency medical treatment.

A DUI defense I have raised, albeit rarely, pertains to the “Auto Brewery Syndrome” or, as is referred to by the medical community, “Bladder Beer” and “Gut Fermentation Syndrome”. The DUI criminal defense attorney thereafter argues to the prosecutor and to the court that the defendant’s body gets drunk even if they didn’t drink alcohol. This defense comes to light after an officer stops a driver with this condition and charges them with a DUI and the driver truthfully denies drinking alcohol or has had very little alcohol to drink but registers a high blood alcohol concentration (BAC).

This syndrome is a rare (very rare) medical condition in which yeast (such as candida) inside the digestive system ferments carbohydrates and generates enough alcohol to cause intoxication. The effects of the syndrome can have a serious effect on the everyday life of the person with the disease because the symptoms are very similar to that of a person who has been drinking. The symptoms may include, but are not limited to, bouts of goofiness, dizziness, hangovers, disorientation, dry mouth, chronic fatigue syndrome, anxiety, and depression.

To understand Auto Brewery Syndrome one has to understand how the body generates alcohol. Yeast fermenting in the person’s digestive system causes the carbohydrates to be turned into alcohol inside the person’s body in a process called endogenous ethanol production. Endogenous ethanol production is a normal process which produces alcohol inside every person, including people who do not drink alcohol. Through this process the normal person may generate very small but measurable levels of alcohol in their blood typically much less than 0.004 blood alcohol concentration (BAC). To get a significant measurable level of alcohol from this process requires increased fermentation and/or a diminished ability to metabolize alcohol.Typically, neither the officer nor the person charged with a DUI are aware that the person suffers from Gut Fermentation Syndrome: the officer either makes a safety investigation stop to assist a disabled vehicle or a traffic stop. The traffic stops are generally valid, such as when the officer observes a vehicle driver exhibiting at least one of the known visual DUI detection clues or some other traffic infraction, such as speeding or failing to comply with a traffic control device. Many of the visual DUI detection clues officers look for include but are not be limited to: weaving, swerving, nearly colliding with another vehicle, unexplained speeding up or slowing down, driving well below the posted speed limit, stopping in the lane of travel for no reason, driving without headlights at night, driving the wrong way down a one-way street, turning in a wide radius, experiencing difficulty parking, stopping well before or after the traffic light intersection marked line, driving over the dividing line, driving over the fog line, or improperly changing lane.

In their reports, the officer alleges that the driver had the odor of alcohol about their person, had bloodshot and watery eyes, and either experienced difficulty performing the standardized field sobriety tests or simply failed them. And as is also typical the officer refuses to believe that the driver after they informed the officer they had nothing alcoholic to drink. But it tends to be the DUI defense lawyers who research and investigate their client’s claims who find out about Gut Fermentation Syndrome and thereafter have their clients evaluated.

As would be expected with the Beer Bladder defense, the Kentucky DUI criminal defense attorney will require expert medical testimony to explain this condition to the court and to the jury. But even with medical testimony, ignorance that the person is impaired while operating a motor vehicle in the state of Kentucky is not necessarily a defense to the charge of DUI. The reason is that Kentucky DUI law does not include intent.The Kentucky DUI statue KRS 189A.010(1)(a) states in part, "A person shall not operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle anywhere in this state: (a) Having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more ...." Of more concern is how the statute applies to drivers under 21 and therefore subject them to Kentucky's zero-tolerance law since there is a greater likelihood that the BAC level caused by this syndrome would below the legal limit of 0.08 BAC but above 0.02 BAC. KRS 189A.010(1)(f) states in part,"A person shall not operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle anywhere in this state: (f) Having an alcohol concentration of 0.02 or more ...". Ultimately, the validity of this defense will fall on the Kentucky DUI lawyer arguments about the evidence of the medical condition to the jury.

Over the years clients have asked me if it’s possible for them to get drunk when they did not drink an alcoholic drink. The answer, yes!

But then, this should come as no surprise to scientists since human bodies contain two of the required ingredients to make beer, glucose (sugar) and yeast. Yeast is an essential part of the beer process since it feasts on sugars and makes alcohol as a by-product. Add carbohydrates or grains and one has all of the necessary ingredients for the human body to naturally form alcohol.

According to one scientific study, Bladder Beer - A New Clinical Observation - trace amounts of alcohol were found in normal circumstances in the blood of patients who had not consumed alcohol. The study revealed that Candida - a yeast - will consume glucose and produce measurable amounts of alcohol as a byproduct in a urine specimine kept in the laboratory for several days at room temperature.

Japanese scientists further reported findings which they call the Auto-Brewery Syndrome where middle-aged patients with bowel abnormalities who had yeast overgrowth, usually Candida, in the GI tract and who ferment ingested carbohydrates, produced enough alcohol to result in drunkenness. Unfortunately, the endogenous ethanol 'auto-brewery syndrome' as a drunk-driving defense challenge typically lacks merit.

Can a person taking over-the-counter or prescription medication be charged with DUI? In short, yes.

Kentucky can and does charge individuals with DUI who claim to have taken only prescription or over-the-counter drugs - even if the level of the dose was below the therapeutic dose. Unfortunately, the fact that a person has taken a therapeutic dose of a medication can mean that they were impaired.

Importantly, some drugs, by their very nature and even when taken according to the prescription or manufacturer instructions can cause impairment for driving. For example, sleep aids taken at a therapeutic level cause sleep. In the case of individuals with ADD or ADHD, the use of amphetamine can result in a DUI as a result of law - even if the medication makes the person with ADD or ADHD a less distracted and thereafore a better driver.

According to KRS 189A.010(1)(d) and KRS 189A.010(12), a person can be found guilty of DUI if any of the following substances are found in their blood within two hours of the cessation of the operation of a motor vehicle:

I am currently preparing a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) presentation for the Kentucky Bar Association where I teach other attorney's how to prepare a legal defense to the charge of Driving Under the Influence (DUI). This will be the fourth year I have been invited to either write or present the CLE materials. As part of the presentation this year, I decided to add a little humor centered around DUI defenses and Kentucky's love for Horses.

To that end, I am reaching out to the community for help. I plan to preface each DUI topic with a "Top DUI Defense I Learned from My Horse". The general topics include: Standard Field Sobriety Tests; One Leg Stand; Walk and Turn; HGN or Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test; Portable Breath Test or PBT; Alphabet Test; Touching The Nose Dexterity Test; Counting Test; Suppression of the Traffic Stop; Implied Consent; Suppression of the Breath Test or Intoxylizer; Suppression of the Blood Test; the Officers Violation of the Statutory Observation Period; When a DUI can be Expunged, and more. I am seeking your suggestions and comments which I can use in the presentation.

For example, a few of the suggested "Top DUI Defenses I Learned From My Horse" currently under consideration include:

1) If I was meant to stand on one leg, then I would have been born with one leg!

2) But officer, I only had a few beers, they make my coat shine.

3) HGN, lets see, does that mean Have Grain Now?

4) Officer, you stopped me for speeding? What part of RACEHORSE do you not understand?

5) You want me to count to thirty while I stand on one leg? You must be horsing around!

6) You want me to say the alphabet from H to R? How can I do that when I can not even pronounce my own name?

7) Walk and Turn, no problem. I can do that, but do I take 9 steps with each leg or only the front two, and if only using the front legs, what do I do with my rear legs?

8) Field Sobriety Test, hmmm, yes, I see the field and it has grass in it. Out of my way, I want to taste the grass to test if I can maintain sobriety.

9) Look at my hoofs, you expect me to take these tests with heels over two inches?

Note, by posting suggestions in the comment section, you are giving me permission to use the best of the suggestions in my presentation to Kentucky's future DUI defense lawyers. Thank you.

In reading recent DUI articles for this website, I stumbled across an article from the Augusta Chronicle where a Richmond County Georgia deputy sheriff was forced to resign after admitting to falsifying readings from a portable breath testing device. According to the article, the deputy had 62 pending DUI cases which are now in jeopardy. The article further stated that there may have been people charged with driving under the influence who should not have been charged with the DUI.

Sadly, the falsification of DUI evidence by officers is not new and is definitely not limited to Georgia. I recall successfully defending a DUI case in Rowan County, Kentucky, where the prosecutor and I discovered that the arresting officer had been charging drivers with DUI without supporting evidence. In my client's case, the officer claimed my client was driving under the influence of alcohol. Fortunately, a blood test proved my client's innocence once we received the report indicated he had no alcohol present in his body. The Court dismissed my client's case and the officer was subsequently fired.

Unfortunately, it has been my observation that not all innocent individuals inappropriately charged with a DUI are lucky enough to uncover evidence to prove their innocence. I have observed a disturbing trend in Kentucky where law enforcement agencies which used to have their officers make video recordings of the stop, the Standard Field Sobriety Tests, the arrests, and the suspect's performance on the Intoxilyzer no longer have their officers make these recordings. Without these recordings, it is a bit more difficult to show the court that the officer erred in collecting evidence against the accused.

So what do defense lawyers do when exculpatory evidence is not readily available? We turn to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constituion. The Confrontation Clause provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." This usually applies to testimonial evidence, but may also apply to pretrial conferences in order to expedite the case. Of importance, the Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the state criminal prosecutions. It does not apply to civil cases or other proceedings.

Wow, if Hollywood got wind of how some people choose attorneys based on some of the calls DUI attorney's receive, then it might make a good movie. Here's an example...

A representative potential client claiming to have been charged with Driving Under The Influence (DUI), First Offense, called the office desiring to speak to a DUI defense attorney about their case. They stated that they did not have an attorney and were seeking a good DUI defense attorney. We then briefly discussed the facts of their case. The conversation went something like this ( * See Note Below):

Caller: Mr. Isaacs, I was arrested six weeks ago for a DUI. The officer did not allow me to call an attorney. He also did not do the Field Sobriety Tests correctly because he didn't do the 14 passes required for the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test nor did he give me the One Leg Stand test. He also did not do the breath test correctly and refused my request for a blood test. The officer also kept asking me questions after he arrested me and he did not give me a Miranda warning. He also ....

Me: Slow down. Let me ask the questions. First, what is your name?

Caller: John Doe [fictitious name]

Me: Are you alone?

Caller: Why?

Me: I want to make sure you are not overheard and that your statements can not be used as admissions against you.

Caller: I am alone.

Me: Have you had a DUI before?

Caller: No.

Me: Have you researched DUI defenses?

Caller: No.

Me: Were you charged with a DUI with an aggravator?

Caller: Yes.

Me: Why were you stopped?

Caller: The officer claimed I was weaving.

Me: When is your next court date?

Caller: In two days.

Me: What's going to happen in two days?

Caller: The trial.

Me: Let me get this straight, your trial is in two days?

Caller: Yes.

Me: Why did you wait so long to call me?

Caller: Because you charge money to defend people.

Me: You seem to know a lot about the DUI defenses. What did your lawyer say about the officer's ability to follow proper procedures for the DUI arrest?

Caller: He stated that he thinks the officer messed up the stop and the Field Sobriety Tests and shouldn't have arrested me. I also want you to sue the officer because he also was rough with me and hurt me.

Me: Didn't you just tell me that you didn't have a lawyer?

Caller: Yeah, but he won't talk with me. I'm afraid the jury will sentence my brother to serve time in jail. After finding all of those people who gave you wonderful ratings on Google and reading your website, I believe my lawyer does not know how to handle a DUI case as good as you can. Can you call him and talk to him for me?

Me: How's your brother involved?

Caller: He was the driver.

Me: What were you charged with?

Caller: Nothing - I wasn't in the car. But the officer hit my brother.

Me: I'm confused, didn't you just state that you were charged with a DUI?

Caller: Will you help me? What should I do? Can you call my brother's attorney?

Me: Is it a public defender or a private defense attorney?

Caller: A public defender.

Me: Can you afford to pay a private attorney?

Caller: Yes.

Me: Let's start from the beginning to discuss what you know about your brother's case, and this time I need for you to tell me the truth ...

* * *

While this conversation may appear to be directly out of a bad Hollywood movie plot, similar conversations actually happen more frequently than they should. Typically, it is a friend or relative of the arrested person who might make the call. In many of these cases, money is a significant factor in the hiring of an attorney. I came to realize years ago that people do not understand that to properly defend an accused person, they have to truthfully share the facts with their attorney when asked. Yet some people do not for various reasons, including the reason that they do not want to pay the Kentucky criminal defense attorney for the attorney's time to review the facts of their case. Sometimes, only after the client (or potential client) realizes that their liberty and livelihood are at stake do they begin trying to correct any inaccuracies in their case facts with their attorney or try to find another attorney.

I have discussed the economics of hiring an attorney in other articles on my DUI website. Potential clients call demanding a price quote for legal services over the telephone, yet as I explain to them, I can not provide a quote that is fair and reasonable for services rendered unless I first know the facts of their case. I further usually state that if I quoted a fee for my services to defend them against DUI charges, then I would only be quoting a fee for the time it would take to plead them guilty since I know how much time that actually takes - assuming that is what they desire. I also state that I charge for my time based on a defense plan based on the case facts and attorney-client discussions based on what needs to be done in the case. If they truly desire my legal services, then I schedule time with them for a consultation to discuss their case. On occasion, the potential client who did not initially retain my services calls back to inquire about retaining my services after they hired another attorney who quoted them a fee up front without knowing all the facts. The typical reasons I hear for why they are searching for another attorney is that their attorney increased the fee they charged to take the case to trial or does not spend time with them to discuss the facts of their case or never arrived at a DUI defense plan or that they don't have enough experience defending DUI cases or they are simply unhappy with the representation.

For many of these reasons, it is very important when hiring a DUI attorney that you meet with the attorney to discuss the case first before entering into a representation agreement. Be prepared to pay for the attorney's time for the consultation.

And remember, when searching for a DUI lawyer, select a lawyer based on the attorney-client relationship along with a good legal defense plan, and not strictly on the lawyer's fee.

Few people charged with DUI realize that they have statutory rights under Kentucky's implied consent laws, KRS 189A.103 and KRS 189A.105, which can protect them from inappropriate police procedure when the police are attempting to obtain evidence of their impairment.

The arresting police officer must comply with this statute or find himself violating the accused person's statutory rights. According to KRS 189A.105:

At the time a breath, blood, or urine test is requested, the person shall be informed:

1. That, if the person refuses to submit to such tests, the fact of this refusal may be used against him in court as evidence of violating KRS 189A.010 and will result in revocation of his driver's license, and if the person refuses to submit to the tests and is subsequently convicted of violating KRS 189A.010(1) then he will be subject to a mandatory minimum jail sentence which is twice as long as the mandatory minimum jail sentence imposed if he submits to the tests, and that if the person refuses to submit to the tests he will be unable to obtain a hardship license; and

2. That, if a test is taken, the results of the test may be used against him in court as evidence of violating KRS 189A.010(1), and that if the results of the test are 0.15 or above and the person is subsequently convicted of violating KRS 189A.010(1), then he will be subject to a sentence that is twice as long as the mandatory minimum jail sentence imposed if the results are less than 0.15; and

3. That if the person first submits to the requested alcohol and substance tests, the person has the right to have a test or tests of his blood performed by a person of his choosing described in KRS 189A.103 within a reasonable time of his arrest at the expense of the person arrested.

KRS 189A.103 states in part that the breath tests, "shall have been performed . . . only after a peace officer has had the person under personal observationat the location of the testfor a minimum of twenty (20) minutes."

Additionally, the police officer must also provide the accused person with the opportunity to contact an attorney. KRS 189A.105 further states:

During the period immediately preceding the administration of any test, the person shall be afforded an opportunity of at least ten (10) minutes but not more than fifteen (15) minutes to attempt to contact and communicate with an attorney and shall be informed of this right.

After the accused person has complied with the police officers requests, then KRS 189A.105 further states:

Immediately following the administration of the final test requested by the officer, the person shall again be informed of his right to have a test or tests of his blood performed by a person of his choosing described in KRS 189A.103 within a reasonable time of his arrest at the expense of the person arrested. He shall then be asked "Do you want such a test?" The officer shall make reasonable efforts to provide transportation to the tests.

If the officer failes to follow the procedures set forth under Kentucky's Implied Consent laws, then any results the officer thereafter obtains may be suppressed.

Person's who believe their Kentucky Implied Consent rights have been violated should contact a Kentucky DUI attorney.

Kentucky’s legislature is working at toughening Kentucky’s Driving Under the Influence (DUI) laws. The following list contains the latest updates to the proposed changes current to February 26, 2011:

HB 328 - Amend KRS 189A.010 - Kentucky’s driving under the influence law - to subject a person who commits a subsequent DUI while a charge for a prior DUI offense is pending to sentencing as an aggravated DUI offender. The bill was introduced to the House on February 3 and to the House Judiciary on February 4, 2011.

SB 141; HB 58 - Amend KRS 189A.005 to expand the definition of "ignition interlock device"; amend KRS 189A.010 to include driving the wrong way on a four-lane highway among the list of factors for triggering aggravated DUI penalties; amend KRS 189A.070 to provide that a reduction in the time period of a license revocation does not lessen the time required for ignition interlock usage; amend KRS 189A.085 to run the period of a license plate impoundment from the date of sentencing to the day the offender is authorized to resume driving and require ignition interlock usage beginning with the first DUI offense; amend KRS 189A.340 to establish an assistance fund for indigent defendants; amend 189A.345 to establish penalties for operating a vehicle without a device when prohibited from doing so; create new sections of KRS Chapter 189A to establish the ignition interlock program, require the promulgation of administrative regulations, and allow a defendant who committed an offense prior to the effective date to elect to be governed by the Act; amend KRS 189A.410 to require ignition interlock usage while an offender is driving on a hardship license amend 186.572 to provide that penalty points assessed against a person's license shall expire only after participation in the interlock ignition program; amend 189A.090 to conform. The bill was introduced to the Senate on February 9, 2011 and to the Senate Judiciary on February 11, 2011.

HB 58 - Amendments - Replace provisions of the bill with new sections to amend KRS 189A.005 to expand the types of allowable ignition interlock devices; amend KRS 189A.010 to include driving the wrong way on a four-lane highway in the list of aggravating circumstances for DUI; amend KRS 189A.070 relating to license revocations to provide for new license revocations periods subject to conditional reinstatement if the offender participates in the ignition interlock program; amend KRS 189A.085 to require license plate impoundment only during the period that a person's license is revoked; amend KRS 189A.340 to specify the circumstances and timelines during which a license may be conditionally reinstated contingent upon interlock usage and to delineate the terms, conditions, and operation of the ignition interlock program; amend KRS 189A.345 to provide the penalty for operating a vehicle without an interlock when one is required; create a new section of KRS Chapter 189A to establish an ignition interlock assistance fund operated by the Transportation Cabinet for indigent offenders; create a new section of KRS Chapter 189A to allow the Transportation Cabinet to promulgate regulations related to the bill; create a new section of KRS Chapter 189A to allow offenders committing an offense prior to the effective date of the bill to opt to be governed by the bill's provisions; amend KRS 189A.410 to limit the availability of hardship licenses to persons committing offenses prior to the effective date of the bill; amend KRS 186.572 to require the imposition of sufficient points to prohibit full re-licensure with the points being removed only after the offender has been fully compliant with ignition interlock usage for a full 120 day period; amend KRS 189A.090 to conform.

HFA - Insert provisions to amend KRS 189A.050 to require a person convicted of DUI to pay the cost of drawing blood for testing; amend KRS 189A.103 to provide that a DUI suspect shall bear the cost of any additional testing done of the suspect's blood, breath, or urine if the additional testing is done at the request of the suspect and after the testing directed by the arresting officer.This bill passed the House on February 8, 2011 and was sent to the Senate.

It appears that the Kentucky Legislature will consider amending Kentucky’s DUI laws for the next legislative session beginning January 4, 2011. In many ways, Kentucky appears to be following the guidance of the National Transportation Safety Board to combat hard-core drunken driving, which is urging states to enact stronger legislation to adopt strong countermeasures to stop impaired driving. According to the NTSB, more than 70% of all drunken-driving crashes involved hard-core offenders last year.

Two Kentucky Representatives have prefiled bills for consideration by the general assembly to address hard-core drunken driving:

Representative Mike Harmon, R-Danville, prefiled a bill (BR 33) for consideration by the general assembly session that would increase DUI penalties for repeat offenders. Rep. Harmon advocates changing the existing penalties from a four-tiered structure to a three-tiered structure, increasing the time a DUI remained on a persons driving / criminal history from five years to ten years, and allowing the forfeiture of motor vehicles used in a DUI if the offender’s operator's license had been previously suspended.

Representative Dennis Keene, D-Newport, also prefiled a bill (BR 290) to amend Kentucky’s DUI statutes. Rep. Keene proposes the following changes: 1) amend KRS 189A.005 to expand the definition of "ignition interlock device" ; 2) amend KRS 189A.010 to include driving the wrong way on a four-lane highway among the list of factors for triggering aggravated DUI penalties; 3) amend KRS 189A.070 to provide that a reduction in the time period of a license revocation does not lessen the time required for ignition interlock usage; 4) amend KRS 189A.085 to run the period of a license plate impoundment from the date of sentencing to the day the offender is authorized to resume driving and require ignition interlock usage beginning with the first DUI offense; 5) amend KRS 189A.340 to establish an assistance fund for indigent defendants; 6) amend KRS 189A.410 to require ignition interlock usage while an offender is driving on a hardship license.

BE SEEN, BE HEARD!

Place your comments on any of the posts on this site for other readers to view. It's simple, just click on the "comment" link below the post which you desire to leave a comment. Then type your comment. It will be reviewed, and if appropriate, published for all to read.

Stop the Addiction

NOTICES & DISCLAIMERS

Nothing on this site should be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship.

This weblog is published by Stephen Isaacs. It is an exercise in journalism, not legal advice

The posts to this blog are the intellectual property of Stephen Isaacs unless otherwise noted. However, you are authorized by license to make certain use of them for non-commercial re-publishing of blog posts, with credit to the original author, subject to the license terms herein.

The author is paid a fee for any item purchased on or thru this site, including legal research and E-books.